BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

376 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 18clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai776Delhi774Karnataka545Chennai392Bangalore376Pune222Jaipur206Ahmedabad197Kolkata142Hyderabad142Chandigarh88Lucknow65Indore56Cochin53Amritsar50Cuttack37Rajkot37Nagpur35Visakhapatnam35Allahabad32Raipur28Agra24Surat22Telangana22Calcutta18Patna16SC14Jodhpur14Panaji14Varanasi10Kerala9Rajasthan7Punjab & Haryana6Ranchi6Dehradun4Jabalpur3Andhra Pradesh2Guwahati2Himachal Pradesh2Orissa1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 11120Section 12A77Section 2(15)64Exemption58Addition to Income53Section 143(3)42Section 153C32Disallowance30Charitable Trust

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

ITA 2109/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri Vijaya Mehta, CA & Shri Avinash Mallya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

18 of 81\nITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024\n6.2 The second proviso to section 143(3) is reproduced below\n[Provided further that where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any fund\nor institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or trust or institution referred to in\nsub-clause (v) or any university or other educational institution referred to in\nsub

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 376 · Page 1 of 19

...
30
Section 80G22
Section 13221
Section 153A21
ITA 2106/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

18 16 31 Mar 10\nOnanimg\nBalance\nTreitsaction\nDabd\nCrecta\n131\n24000 0002\n2,00,0000000\n10 GO GOD BOJ\n15050601\n000460 Or\n22. 10 17 3850\n38. 8000.000 60\n26. 63.75 09500\n22000 200\n30-00.000.00 D\n100 CROC D\n1\n0000030.\nPage 8.\nITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024\nPage 12 of 81\nRUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST\nDivyande Chambers. Wing

SHRI SHRUTHIPARAMPARA GURUKULAM,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-3, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

ITA 1083/BANG/2022[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sreenivas T Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

18. The ITAT Bangalore bench in M/s Sri Channamallikarjuna Trust Committee Gangavathi Vs. CIT (E) – ITA No 1829/Bang/2018 (order dated 4.5.2022) explained the difference between charitable purpose and religious purpose and held as under:- “13. In sections

SHRI SHRUTHIPARAMPARA GURUKULAM,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-3, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

ITA 1082/BANG/2022[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sreenivas T Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

18. The ITAT Bangalore bench in M/s Sri Channamallikarjuna Trust Committee Gangavathi Vs. CIT (E) – ITA No 1829/Bang/2018 (order dated 4.5.2022) explained the difference between charitable purpose and religious purpose and held as under:- “13. In sections

SRI. MARAMMA TEMPLE SEVA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 818/BANG/2015[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2015

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No818/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : Na) Sri Maramma Temple Seva Trust, No.11, Maramma Temple Street, 1St Main Road, Vyalikaval, Bengaluru 560 003 .. Appellant Pan : Aants4131R V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (E), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Sudhakar Rao, Cit – Dr-I Heard On : 21.10.2015 Pronounced On : 30.10.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sudhakar Rao, CIT – DR-I
Section 12A

18. In short, it is not the case of the AO or the CIT(A) that both the assessees are either not fully or partly engaged in the non- religious or the non-charitable activities. In fact, from the assessment order, we find that the AO has undisputedly accepted the fact that, more particularly in the case of Calicut Islamic

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2006/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Hariprasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 115TSection 12ASection 13Section 133A

charitable trust was rejected. x. On the basis of the above findings, the ld. CIT(E) relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Islamic Academy of Education 234 Taxman 774, cancelled the registration of the trust . 08. Accordingly, the ld. CIT (E) was of the view that the trust has violated

M/S RABIYA BASARI BRAHAMATH-ULLAH ALLAYHA CHARITABLE TRUST vs. CIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeals are allowed

ITA 423/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Kum. Neera Malhotra, CIT
Section 1Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(b)Section 2(15)

trust deed are charitable in nature as contemplated u/s 2(15) of the IT Act, and the objects of developing the Muslim Community, which is a broad cross section of general public itself in an object of advancement of general public utility, which is charitable object alongwith the other objects No.5,6,7,8,12,14,15,16 and 18

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

ITA 2107/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijaya Mehta, CA & Shri Avinash Mallya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

18 AR).\n3.1.6 As per the copy of Board resolutions and documents seized during\nthe search action, the Trustees will pay the advance, (taken by them to\npurchase the land) back to the Trust, the land and building will effectively\nbe the unencumbered property of the Trustees. The said implication\nindicates that the trustees never intended to transfer the land

SHROUTA VIJNAM GURUKULAM,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, EXEMPTIONS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

ITA 694/BANG/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 May 2024

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : Na M/S. Shrouta Vijnan Gurukulam, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), 1 Nidagod, Targod B. O. Ward – 1, Arasapur, Mangaluru. Uttara Kannada – 561 402. Pan : Aants 0655 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prakash S Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(E)’S Order Dated 22.02.2024 Rejecting The Assessee’S Application Seeking Approval Under Section 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Prakash S Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

section 80G of the I.T.Act. 18. As regards the case law relied on by the CIT(E), we find that in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd v CIT (supra), one of the objects of the Trust deed was ‘to establish, maintain and to grant and / or aid to public places of worship and prayer halls

SRI ASHVALAYANA VRUNDA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

ITA 1085/BANG/2022[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.B.R.Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

section 80G of the I.T.Act. 18. As regards the case law relied on by the CIT(E), we find that in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd v CIT 16 ITA Nos.1084-1085/Bang/2022 Sri Ashvalayana Vrunda (supra), one of the objects of the Trust deed was ‘to establish, maintain and to grant and / or aid to public places

SRI ASHVALAYANA VRUNDA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

ITA 1084/BANG/2022[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.B.R.Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

section 80G of the I.T.Act. 18. As regards the case law relied on by the CIT(E), we find that in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd v CIT 16 ITA Nos.1084-1085/Bang/2022 Sri Ashvalayana Vrunda (supra), one of the objects of the Trust deed was ‘to establish, maintain and to grant and / or aid to public places

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S B S & G FOUNDATION,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for asst

ITA 884/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S B S & G Foundation, 502, 2Nd Floor, 5Th ‘C’ Main, 5Th Cross, 2Nd Block, Hrbr Layout, Kalyannagar, Bangalore. . Respondent Pan – Aaatb6131D. Appellant By : Smt. Padmameenakshhi, Jcit Respondent By : Shri R.T Balasubramanyam, C.A Date Of Hearing : 28-9-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 4-10-2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Padmameenakshhi, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R.T Balasubramanyam, C.A
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)

section the income ITA No.884/B/16 14 which is to be taken for purpose of accumulation is the income derived by the trust from property. If both the decisions are carefully read, it becomes evident that any expenditure which is in the shape of application of income is not to be taken into account. Having found that trust is entitled

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 290/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

charitable institution is hit by the provisions of section 13. The AO will have to prove to the hilt, on the basis of positive evidence brought on record, that the trust has committed a violation of the provisions of section 13 of the Act. If the AO is not able to discharge the burden of proof, which lies

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 291/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

charitable institution is hit by the provisions of section 13. The AO will have to prove to the hilt, on the basis of positive evidence brought on record, that the trust has committed a violation of the provisions of section 13 of the Act. If the AO is not able to discharge the burden of proof, which lies

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1126/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Phalguna Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

18. The proviso to sub-section 2 applies in a given circumstances, but cannot by making main provision of section 12 A as redundant. In the instant case, the application for registration was then submitted on 15.12.2O14. The registration was given on 08,06.2015. Since registration has been given on O8.O6.2015, the benefit of Section 11 & 12 would

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1762/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

Charitable Trust". 13 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. [ii] It is submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act being defective, the subsequent proceedings would not result in a valid assessment even if the assessee had filed the return. Reliance is placed on the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1766/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

Charitable Trust". 13 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. [ii] It is submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act being defective, the subsequent proceedings would not result in a valid assessment even if the assessee had filed the return. Reliance is placed on the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1763/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

Charitable Trust". 13 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. [ii] It is submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act being defective, the subsequent proceedings would not result in a valid assessment even if the assessee had filed the return. Reliance is placed on the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1765/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

Charitable Trust". 13 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. [ii] It is submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act being defective, the subsequent proceedings would not result in a valid assessment even if the assessee had filed the return. Reliance is placed on the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1764/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

Charitable Trust". 13 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. [ii] It is submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act being defective, the subsequent proceedings would not result in a valid assessment even if the assessee had filed the return. Reliance is placed on the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High